HucksOnline: Did the voters of Coeur d'Alene give you & Steve Adams a mandate last night?
Dan Gookin: The mandate is that they want a public vote on McEuen Field. Some could argue that was the public vote. But going forward they want an actual ballot for a public vote.
HucksOnline: How would you form the question for a public vote?
Dan Gookin: The 3 big issues are the ballfield, boat ramp, and parking garage. I'd say an up-or-down vote on each of those. A question could be: Should the ballfields be moved off McEuen to Cherry Hill. I'd specify the costs. Ditto for the boat ramp. Ditto for the parking garage. I'd also favor of asking: Would you favor the Hyatt plan for McEuen? Would you favor the Walker-Macy plan?
HucksOnline: You still are one vote short of getting a public vote on McEuen Field. How does that figure into your thinking?
Dan Gookin: You're assuming we're one vote short. We won't know until council meets in January how the other council members will go. You're assuming Mike, Deanna, and Woody will maintain their posture. There has been a lot of self-reflection in last 48 hours.
More below
HucksOnline: Can you get along with Mayor Bloem & the council members who didn't want to see you elected?
Dan Gookin: As someone who has sat on outside of wall, you often see council as a block. I don't think they're all buddies. They don't get out and play bunco every Saturday night. There's no question that everyone on the council loves the city. We all want to do what's best. We might differ on how we get there.
HucksOnline: What do you think were the issues that allowed you to run away with your race against a well-known former legislator?
Dan Gookin: McEuen Field definitely put us over the top. The Reagan Republicans had the foot soldiers. They were knocking on the doors. Making the phone calls. Stuffing envelopes. They did everything right. The real reason George lost was he was on wrong side of issues.
HucksOnline: Should Tony Berns be looking for another job?
Dan Gookin: LCDC is a separate state agency. It's not a part of the city. Tony Berns is in the same fear of his job from me as Patricia Bell or Hazel Bauman would be. I'm not going to serve on the LCDC board. I don't think any council member should serve on LCDC. I'll look forward to seeing Tony Berns in February, however, and I'll have some questions for him.
HucksOnline: After your second loss for council 2 years ago, you said, “I'd rather cut off my own head than run again.” Obviously, you're glad you didn't?
Dan Gookin: It was a perfect storm. There were 3 things I looked at that made me want to run. McEuen Field was the issue this time. We didn't have a real issue last time. The second one was the Reagan Republicans. Third was the new county clerk. The election last time, in 2009, was flawed. With Cliff in there, we had a new confidence that flaws and issues that came up last time wouldn't be issues this time.
My only beef with Dan stemmed from his strident opposition to the Kroc Center. His in-depth research at the time had him convinced that the community would never support a center of its size. He forecast a membership demand of no more than 2000.
I’d like to know what he’ll do to avoid such poor judgement in the future. Because now he’s a decision maker, and I would hope his decisions are reached based on better research than he’s done in the past.
Other than that, have fun Dan. And next time you see me in Subway, say hi.
“He forecast a membership demand of no more than 2000”.
Idahodad, I don’t know if you’re a member of the Kroc Center but, alot of members come from out-of-the area and some from out-of-state. Which, explains the high number of members.
I oppose non government agencies having executive authority over American lives. Such agencies should be confronted wherever found. If elected officials want to go on a campaign to redevelop downtown - taxing and taking and building - the people can express like or dislike for their actions at the polls. The Lake City Development Corporation - let’s not call it by the cute initials - is such an authority, adding a layer cake of spending not to mention leading from behind a curtain. Why not disband it, and let the Council beautify or not beautify but at least have those decisions in the hands of elected officials? We’ve moved beyond the ‘greed is good’ Eighties. Are the shadowy corporate government agencies that decade brought us here to stay?
I wonder how long it’s gonna take Gookin or Adams to violate confidentiality laws on some scale and get the city in to a law suit? My bet it will be Adams since intelligence doesn’t seem to be a priority for him.
“# How would you form the question for a public vote? # Dan Gookin: The 3 big issues are the ballfield, boat ramp, and parking garage. I’d say an up-or-down vote on each of those. A question could be: Should the ballfields be moved off McEuen to Cherry Hill. I’d specify the costs. Ditto for the boat ramp. Ditto for the parking garage. And you could ask, would you favor a re-do of Front Avenue (with all cost associated). I’d also favor putting up to a public vote. Would you favor the Hyatt plan for McEuen? Would you favor the Walker-Macy plan?”
I think it would be an Herculean task of fashioning logical set of questions regarding what features should be done in upgrading McEwen.
Aren’t there items that overlap in the Hyatt plan and the Walker-Macy Plan?
And then what about offering a NONE OF THE ABOVE, i.e. the ability of a citizen to choose to change NOTHING about the park, of which I’ll bet there’s a significant constituency, but regardless of its size, shouldn’t that be an option?
Seriously, I just don’t see how this can made to result in a CLEAR plan to redevelop the park, or not do it at all. It seems to me you’re going to get all kinds of conflicting results from such a plebiscite.
And unless something DRASTICALLY increases voter turnout, you’re still going to have a “decision” made by perhaps a tenth of the those eligible to vote, and maybe a quarter of those registered to vote.
I want to post a note about a slight change that occurred when Dan Gookin was elected. As you know, I protect elected officials that post on HucksOnline. Gookin does. Therefore, he falls under the protection guidelines of this blog. That doesn’t mean commenters can’t challenge ideas. But I’ll be watching closely to make sure it doesn’t go beyond that, into something personal. I value elected officials who post here, regardless of political persuasion.
Okay, Dan, whatever you say. I remember it better than you do. You preached long and loud that the Kroc Center would become a burden to the city. You did the research. You had the numbers. Your concerns were presented as fact, and you were absolutely, 100% convinced that if the Kroc Center were to go through, it would become a tax burden.
But apparently you and Kathy Sims and Larry Spencer weren’t fighting against the Kroc. Right.
Sorry, Dad, but you’re going to have to show me whatever it is you seem to own on this Kroc Center accusation. I had no beef with the thing at all until $3,000,000 of public money was given by the City to the Parks Foundation for remediation of the site. That was my only issue. Spin that however you may, but I never opposed the award. I didn’t believe we’d win it, but we did.
Oh, and I think the design is not representative of this part of the country. You can beat me up on that, if you like.
“Thanks, Kage, for illustrating my point, that Dan’s research was faulty”. Idahodad
Idahodad, if Dan was wrong, whose research was right? There was not one person in the whole of Kootenai County who predicted the membership the Kroc Center currently has. The Kroc Center helped to get mayor Bloem re-elected imo. Most people like the Kroc Center.
Dan, have you ever heard anyone describe you as insufferable? I’m guessing yes.
If you’re absolutely convinced that you were a supporter of the Kroc Center, than that’s fine. I’ll believe you.
Thanks for your support. It’s a beautiful facility.
Also, thanks for your support of the new library. And the education corridor. And all of the other great things in our community that you were such an outspoken critic of.
I can’t wait to see what you “support” in the future.
Kage, the Salvation Army did a study that estimated membership to reach 8 to 10,000. Dan scoffed at those numbers here on HBO. All but called John Chamness a liar.
Mr Gookin: you and other supporters of Brannon had your day in court (actually more than a week) to “prove” that the previous election was “flawed.” You failed.
Election tampering is a serious offence, and accusing our fomer clerk of that is wrong and baseless.
Congratulations on your win. I am sure you won on your own merits. Last go-round, you lost on your own merits.
Please govern with a greater respect than you often show in your comments.
IdahoDad: you might be referring to the calculation I made of sustaining membership on the Kroc. I believe my number was over 7,000. Obviously they hit that target and kept going. So I can admit that I was low, and happily so.
LittleRed: Election fraud was not an issue with the Brannon case. The judge limited discussion to illegal voters. Three were found.
My hat’s off to Dan and to all of the candidates. I have no idea why anyone would want to run for City Council. 750 bucks a month for the beating they take? No thanks.
Al told me once that serving on the Council cost him tens of thousands of dollars because the time requirements took him away from his business. Of course, in Dan’s case, I imagine he could always write ‘City Council for Dummies’ during the meetings when the boring stuff is considered.
Concerning LCDC, I hope Dan comes to appreciate the good that has come from it, even if he does not like the process some times. Ditto for Mr. Adams. Maybe they’ll each still be aboard in ten years when the Lake District ends and the city gets a windfall of about two million bucks a year. It will be fun to see how they’d figure that into the city’s budget.
In the meantime, congrats Dan. The third time was truly the charm. :)
Again, Thanks John. I congratulate all of the new council members. They won for a reason. People wanted a change. We’ll see. I hope they have some some humility and don’t cry out. I have met Dan and like him a lot. Good Luck in the future and please speak your mind, but like I said, with a little honor. We are all listening.
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
Spokane7
56°
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
IdahoDad on November 09 at 1:28 p.m.
My only beef with Dan stemmed from his strident opposition to the Kroc Center. His in-depth research at the time had him convinced that the community would never support a center of its size. He forecast a membership demand of no more than 2000.
I’d like to know what he’ll do to avoid such poor judgement in the future. Because now he’s a decision maker, and I would hope his decisions are reached based on better research than he’s done in the past.
Other than that, have fun Dan. And next time you see me in Subway, say hi.
Kage_Mann on November 09 at 1:47 p.m.
“He forecast a membership demand of no more than 2000”.
Idahodad, I don’t know if you’re a member of the Kroc Center but, alot of members come from out-of-the area and some from
out-of-state. Which, explains the high number of members.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 2:25 p.m.
Thanks, Kage, for illustrating my point, that Dan’s research was faulty, and his decision to fight the acquisition of the Kroc Center was a poor one.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 2:28 p.m.
Kage, you think that less than 5% of Coeur d’Alene’s population has a Kroc membership?
brentandrews on November 09 at 2:43 p.m.
I oppose non government agencies having executive authority over American lives. Such agencies should be confronted wherever found. If elected officials want to go on a campaign to redevelop downtown - taxing and taking and building - the people can express like or dislike for their actions at the polls. The Lake City Development Corporation - let’s not call it by the cute initials - is such an authority, adding a layer cake of spending not to mention leading from behind a curtain. Why not disband it, and let the Council beautify or not beautify but at least have those decisions in the hands of elected officials? We’ve moved beyond the ‘greed is good’ Eighties. Are the shadowy corporate government agencies that decade brought us here to stay?
nic on November 09 at 2:58 p.m.
“There’s no question that everyone on the council loves the city.”
I’m glad Dan thinks this way. Too bad Steve Adams doesn’t agree.
Dennis on November 09 at 3:22 p.m.
I wonder how long it’s gonna take Gookin or Adams to violate confidentiality laws on some scale and get the city in to a law suit? My bet it will be Adams since intelligence doesn’t seem to be a priority for him.
greenlibertarian on November 09 at 3:28 p.m.
“# How would you form the question for a public vote?
# Dan Gookin: The 3 big issues are the ballfield, boat ramp, and parking garage. I’d say an up-or-down vote on each of those. A question could be: Should the ballfields be moved off McEuen to Cherry Hill. I’d specify the costs. Ditto for the boat ramp. Ditto for the parking garage. And you could ask, would you favor a re-do of Front Avenue (with all cost associated). I’d also favor putting up to a public vote. Would you favor the Hyatt plan for McEuen? Would you favor the Walker-Macy plan?”
I think it would be an Herculean task of fashioning logical set of questions regarding what features should be done in upgrading McEwen.
Aren’t there items that overlap in the Hyatt plan and the Walker-Macy Plan?
And then what about offering a NONE OF THE ABOVE, i.e. the ability of a citizen to choose to change NOTHING about the park, of which I’ll bet there’s a significant constituency, but regardless of its size, shouldn’t that be an option?
Seriously, I just don’t see how this can made to result in a CLEAR plan to redevelop the park, or not do it at all. It seems to me you’re going to get all kinds of conflicting results from such a plebiscite.
And unless something DRASTICALLY increases voter turnout, you’re still going to have a “decision” made by perhaps a tenth of the those eligible to vote, and maybe a quarter of those registered to vote.
DanGookin on November 09 at 3:29 p.m.
IdahoDad: I did not fight the acquisition of the Kroc Center. My only concern was that it not become a tax item on the City’s budget.
DFO on November 09 at 3:29 p.m.
I want to post a note about a slight change that occurred when Dan Gookin was elected. As you know, I protect elected officials that post on HucksOnline. Gookin does. Therefore, he falls under the protection guidelines of this blog. That doesn’t mean commenters can’t challenge ideas. But I’ll be watching closely to make sure it doesn’t go beyond that, into something personal. I value elected officials who post here, regardless of political persuasion.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 3:56 p.m.
Okay, Dan, whatever you say. I remember it better than you do. You preached long and loud that the Kroc Center would become a burden to the city. You did the research. You had the numbers. Your concerns were presented as fact, and you were absolutely, 100% convinced that if the Kroc Center were to go through, it would become a tax burden.
But apparently you and Kathy Sims and Larry Spencer weren’t fighting against the Kroc. Right.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 4:01 p.m.
Dan, a simple “Boy, was I ever wrong about the Kroc Center! I’ll do better next time,” would’ve worked wonders on me.
Do politicians ever admit when they’re wrong?
DanGookin on November 09 at 4:18 p.m.
Sorry, Dad, but you’re going to have to show me whatever it is you seem to own on this Kroc Center accusation. I had no beef with the thing at all until $3,000,000 of public money was given by the City to the Parks Foundation for remediation of the site. That was my only issue. Spin that however you may, but I never opposed the award. I didn’t believe we’d win it, but we did.
Oh, and I think the design is not representative of this part of the country. You can beat me up on that, if you like.
Kage_Mann on November 09 at 4:20 p.m.
“Thanks, Kage, for illustrating my point, that Dan’s research was faulty”. Idahodad
Idahodad, if Dan was wrong, whose research was right? There was not one person in the whole of Kootenai County who predicted the membership the Kroc Center currently has. The Kroc Center helped to get mayor Bloem re-elected imo. Most people like the Kroc Center.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 4:51 p.m.
Dan, have you ever heard anyone describe you as insufferable? I’m guessing yes.
If you’re absolutely convinced that you were a supporter of the Kroc Center, than that’s fine. I’ll believe you.
Thanks for your support. It’s a beautiful facility.
Also, thanks for your support of the new library. And the education corridor. And all of the other great things in our community that you were such an outspoken critic of.
I can’t wait to see what you “support” in the future.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 4:52 p.m.
Kage, the Salvation Army did a study that estimated membership to reach 8 to 10,000. Dan scoffed at those numbers here on HBO. All but called John Chamness a liar.
littlered on November 09 at 5:36 p.m.
Mr Gookin: you and other supporters of Brannon had your day in court (actually more than a week) to “prove” that the previous election was “flawed.” You failed.
Election tampering is a serious offence, and accusing our fomer clerk of that is wrong and baseless.
Congratulations on your win. I am sure you won on your own merits. Last go-round, you lost on your own merits.
Please govern with a greater respect than you often show in your comments.
DanGookin on November 09 at 5:43 p.m.
IdahoDad: you might be referring to the calculation I made of sustaining membership on the Kroc. I believe my number was over 7,000. Obviously they hit that target and kept going. So I can admit that I was low, and happily so.
LittleRed: Election fraud was not an issue with the Brannon case. The judge limited discussion to illegal voters. Three were found.
Phaedrus on November 09 at 6:23 p.m.
Insufferable, an apt description.
TomHamilton on November 09 at 6:33 p.m.
@phaedrus - and the pot calls the kettle black.
IdahoDad on November 09 at 8:50 p.m.
Dan, don’t forget you work for me now. Don’t talk back to the boss. :)
JohnA on November 09 at 9:16 p.m.
My hat’s off to Dan and to all of the candidates. I have no idea why anyone would want to run for City Council. 750 bucks a month for the beating they take? No thanks.
Al told me once that serving on the Council cost him tens of thousands of dollars because the time requirements took him away from his business. Of course, in Dan’s case, I imagine he could always write ‘City Council for Dummies’ during the meetings when the boring stuff is considered.
Concerning LCDC, I hope Dan comes to appreciate the good that has come from it, even if he does not like the process some times. Ditto for Mr. Adams. Maybe they’ll each still be aboard in ten years when the Lake District ends and the city gets a windfall of about two million bucks a year. It will be fun to see how they’d figure that into the city’s budget.
In the meantime, congrats Dan. The third time was truly the charm. :)
Stickman on November 10 at 9:38 p.m.
Again, Thanks John. I congratulate all of the new council members. They won for a reason. People wanted a change. We’ll see. I hope they have some some humility and don’t cry out. I have met Dan and like him a lot. Good Luck in the future and please speak your mind, but like I said, with a little honor. We are all listening.